[Kalen Braley]

I'll answer that question for you Phil.

Only two guys had impressive major resumes in Jacks prime  (63-75):

Gary Player: 5 wins
Lee Trevino: 5 wins

Others:

Casper: 2
Palmer: 1
Irwin: 1
Miller: 1
Watson: 1
Floyd: 1

The picture looks a lot different when we are comparing apples to apples.

I guess next we should take a look at all the "only good" players who won during Tigers prime and see how it stacks up.

[Anthony Gray]

  Todays players I would would not consider as legendary as the ones Jack competed with. Todays names just don't stand out in the history of golf.

  Anthony

[Dan_Callahan]

  Todays players I would would not consider as legendary as the ones Jack competed with. Todays names just don't stand out in the history of golf.

  Anthony

That's because it's today. History hasn't happened yet. You need to wait 20 years and then look back and evaluate Tiger's competition.

[George Pazin]

George:

Also posted on the other thread.....

How, exactly, are:

Bob Charles, Dave Marr, Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, Don January, Orville Moody, Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Tom Weiskopf, and Lou Graham -- major winners all, from 1963 through 1975 (Jack's dominant period as a player) -- that much different than:

...Justin Leonard, Paul Lawrie, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, , Todd Hamilton, Mike Weir, Zach Johnson, Michael Campbell and Trevor Immelman, all major winners from 1997 through 2008 (Tiger's dominant period as a player)?

More seriously this time:

Looking quickly at the results of the above, what jumps out at me is how many victories besides majors the earlier guys racked up, versus the relatively one hit wonders in the more recent group. Again, you can read that two ways: 1) the guys today can't win or 2) there are far more guys who can win, so they all win at a smaller rate overall.

To me, it defies common sense to think that the fields aren't getting far deeper, with the dollar amounts involved. The miniscule differences between the second tier (and I use that term respectfully and without intent to lessen the accomplishments of the Trevino/Els level of golfer) is just that, miniscule.

Was Jones' competition better because he had to contend with Hagen, who won a bunch of majors?

Was Hogan's competition better because he had to deal with Nelson and Snead?

Each generation sees greater depth in the overall talent pool, which makes it that much harder for the true greats to stand out.

In summary, I agree with AG's point entirely, looking at the variety of winners while Tiger slumps is just more indication of how great he has been. He has completely warped everyone's perspective. Were it not for him, I think some people would be looking at Phil or Ernie with 8 majors and thinking, is that comparable to Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus? Is that the best someone can do now?

[Kalen Braley]

Here is the list of major winners in Tigers era (97 - 08):

Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Padraig: 3
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

Looks like Tiger went up against a much more consistent group of champs who knew how to get it done.

So much for Jack beating a bevy of heavy duty champs.  Other than 3 players, every one else in Jacks era was a 1 major win only....

Tiger lost to 6 multiple major champs.

[Phil McDade]

Phil,

Fair enough....but you must do the same for the other "great" players in Nicklaus's hey-day.

How many majors did Arnie, Johnie, Player, Trevino, Floyd, etc, etc....but only in that 63-75 time period?  

Arnie -- 1 (you could argue 2, as I would argue Jack's period of dominance really started in '62 with his win over Palmer at Oakmont at the US Open; Arnie won the British Open a month later).

Miller -- 1 (I don't consider him one of Jack's true peers in terms of majors won; he only won 2 of them).

Player -- 5 (6 if you say Jack started in '62; Player won the '62 PGA).

Trevino -- 5 (and he gets bonus points in my book because he took down Jack once in a playoff, and three times relegated him to 2nd place in majors; Jack wins four more majors w/out Trevino)

Floyd -- 1 (2 if you extend Jack's years of dominance to 1976, when he didn't win a major. Jack finished 2nd three times, 3rd twice, and 4th once in the eight majors he played in 1976 and 1977 -- no one else in golf was as consistently threatening in majors those two years as Jack. Floyd also won his last two majors in 1982 and 1986, when Jack was still in pretty good form).

I'd also throw in: Boros (2), Jacklin (2), and Casper (2).

So Player and Trevino had better major records than any of Tiger's peers; only Mickelson with three (edited from four) comes close (and I'd argue Phil never really went mano-a-mano with Jack the way Player did once and Trevino did multiple times in majors). Who among Tiger's peers has won more than 2 majors during his run of dominance? Harrington doesn't count; he won 2 of this 3 when Tiger took himself out of golf in mid-2008 with the knee surgery after Torrey Pines. You're left w/ Singh (3), Goosen (2), O'Meara (2, during one great 4-month stretch of golf), and Els (2).

[Garland Bayley]

I'll answer that question for you Phil.

Only two guys had impressive major resumes in Jacks prime  (63-75):

Gary Player: 5 wins
Lee Trevino: 5 wins

Others:

Casper: 2
Palmer: 1
Irwin: 1
Miller: 1
Watson: 1
Floyd: 1

The picture looks a lot different when we are comparing apples to apples.

I guess next we should take a look at all the "only good" players who won during Tigers prime and see how it stacks up.

Dude, If you want apples to apples you need to throw 62 and 76 in there to get the same number of years that Tiger has been at it since his first major. That gives Arnie 2 more and Gary one more.

[Kalen Braley]

Phil,

If you extend the time lines...then lots of things happen...no doubt

Other multiple winners also emerge.  Cabrera won 2 if you include 2009....and Phil gets another major win in 2010.

No doubt Jack had some formidable competitors, but when its apples to apples....it would seem these guys were a lot more similar than drastically different in terms of wins.

P.S.  The one stat that is interesting is all of Jacks 2nd and 3rd place finishes.  No doubt its very impressive when you compare them to Tiger who was more in the "win or nothing" camp.

[Phil McDade]

Here is the list of major winners in Tigers era (97 - 08):

Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Padraig: 3
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

Looks like Tiger went up against a much more consistent group of champs who knew how to get it done.

So much for Jack beating a bevy of heavy duty champs.  Other than 3 players, every one else in Jacks era was a 1 major win only....

Tiger lost to 6 multiple major champs.

Kalen -- your list:


Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Padraig: 3 1
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

vs. mine:

Trevino -- 5
Player -- 5
Boros -- 2
Jacklin -- 2
Casper -- 2
Palmer -- 2* (given that Jack's record of dominace extends to 1962, when he first started winning majors)

I'll take my list.

[George Pazin]

Phil , you just cherry picked your evidence.

You can't dismiss Harrington's majors any more than you can go through and knock out guys who won majors when Jack was struggling physically. You also don't know how many guys will end up winning more majors from Tiger's period, nor do you know if any of the youngsters will put up impressive numbers and end up being grouped with him.

Phil most certainly was in the hunt with Tiger in 2001 at The Masters, along with Duval.

Please address the multiple other wins I brought up in my earlier post. Bob May took Tiger to the limit and he's pretty much out of golf, as far as I know.

Kalen, the only thing I'd nitpick from you is that Tiger wasn't win or nothing, he has a ton of top 5s and top 10s. Some might argue that's equivalent to top 2s and 3s from the 60s and 70s...

[Kalen Braley]

Here is the list of major winners in Tigers era (97 - 08):

Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Padraig: 3
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

Looks like Tiger went up against a much more consistent group of champs who knew how to get it done.

So much for Jack beating a bevy of heavy duty champs.  Other than 3 players, every one else in Jacks era was a 1 major win only....

Tiger lost to 6 multiple major champs.

Kalen -- your list:


Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Padraig: 3 1
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

vs. mine:

Trevino -- 5
Player -- 5
Boros -- 2
Jacklin -- 2
Casper -- 2
Palmer -- 2* (given that Jack's record of dominace extends to 1962, when he first started winning majors)

I'll take my list.

Hold on there partner.

I get to add Cabrera to mine who won the 2009 Masters if we're extending lists... 

Phil M: 3
Vijay S: 3
Cabrera: 2
Ernie Els: 2
O'Meara: 2
Retief G: 2

Thats 6 vs 6....who do you take in a ryder cup style, round robin singles matches event where everyone plays everyone?  Not sure who would win, but would be closer than one thinks..

[Phil McDade]

To me, it defies common sense to think that the fields aren't getting far deeper, with the dollar amounts involved. The miniscule differences between the second tier (and I use that term respectfully and without intent to lessen the accomplishments of the Trevino/Els level of golfer) is just that, miniscule.

And here's another thing that eats at my craw . Anyone who lumps Trevino and Els together as comparable players just doesn't know their golfing history. Trevino -- 6 majors; Els 3. Trevino relegating Jack to 2nd place in a major -- four times. Els -- 0.

[George Pazin]

Trevino relegating Jack to 2nd place in a major -- four times. Els -- 0.

Just more evidence of how beatable Jack was...

[PThomas]

Trevino relegating Jack to 2nd place in a major -- four times. Els -- 0.

Just more evidence of how beatable Jack was...

did Ernie EVER pressure Woody down the stretch of a major?

[Phil McDade]

Hey guys:

I'm the one being generous here.

Let's say Jack's record of dominance, in the interest of fairness, extends from 1962 (when he first won a major) to 1973, the same number of years as Tiger's run from 1997 (first major) to 2008. My list:

Player 4
Trevino 4
Boros 2
Palmer 2
Jacklin 2

That compares to:

Singh 3
Mickelson 3
Els 2
O'Meara 2
Goosen 2

I'll still take my list.

George: You can't count Harrington's two wins in 2008 for purposes of this argument; Tiger wasn't even playing!

As for those who will go on to win multiple majors among those who have won majors post-2008 Tiger: McIlroy's the only sure bet. Maybe McDowell. Schwartzel -- I'm not convinced yet. Maybe Mickelson, actually.

[George Pazin]

I'll still take my list.

Just shows your bias...

Seriously, trying to compare those golfers is silly.

One could just as easily say. those guys were playing against each other and Jack and a handful of others. The guys today are playing against 100+ golfers. Do I think that about Lee T? Not really, but Lee's claim to fame is his ball striking. Ask Garcia how much that gets you these days.

All you can do is beat your guys. Tiger beats his more often and more impressively than Jack beat his.

Only one thing is for certain: someday some guy will come along, win more or at a better rate than Tiger, and Tiger's supporters will say that guy's competition isn't as good as Els/Mick/Singh!

EXCEPT ME!!! If I say that, you guys can all come over and kick my butt, I won't even fight back.

[Kalen Braley]

One thing is for certain.

Debating it is certainly tons of fun because its a completely non-resolvable dilemma/problem!!   

If there was a time machine though, man I would certainly love to see Tiger and Jack play, both in thier primes....then we could shove it in all those pro-jack guys faces when Tiger wins 7&6!!   

[Phil McDade]

That's how it is with virtually every sport that isn't dying. More money = more incentive for people to try. There are just as many champions today - far more, in fact. Everyone in the top 20 is dying to pile up majors while Tiger is out, it's just really tough to do. For every guy that has an off week, there are 20 more to step up and take his place.

George:

I'd argue the tremendous increase in money in golf has actually dis-incentivised the pursuit of major winning by players.

The all-exempt tour (which didn't come along until late in Jack's career), the rise of the Nationwide Tour, the explosion of sponsorship money (in which even mini-Tour players have endorsement/clothing/club money coming their way) -- all in my mind have made it much easier for golfers of average ability to make a good living at golf, and not care about their legacy. Why put in the work to win a major when you can haul in $500,000 playing the minor leagues?

There will always be players, in all sports and in all generations, who will pursue wins at the expense of money. Tiger, for sure, and a few other golfers of this generation. But I think the money these days has made it easier NOT to do the extra thing(s) needed to win at the very elite levels of the game.

[George Pazin]

Phil, I think you underestimate the power of greed.

Plus, I think there are the same - if not more - players who will be driven by more than money. One could easily make the argument that the tremendous dollars involved allow them the freedom to really focus on their games, as opposed to guys who had to constantly play corporate outings or chase dollars around the world.

People don't change - but athletes do! They are always getting better.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If there was a time machine though, man I would certainly love to see Tiger and Jack play, both in thier primes....then we could shove it in all those pro-jack guys faces when Tiger wins 7&6!!   

Yeah, we know you're real good at picking match play results.

[Garland Bayley]

Phil, I think you underestimate the power of greed.

...

George, I think you underestimate the power or hardscrabble beginnings. Lee and Gary were tough as nails because of their up bringing, something Tiger's dad worked on instilling in Tiger. When faced with that type of toughness, the modern raised in the country club set of golfers extraordinaire folds. Jack although raised in the country club set didn't fold, which is a testament to his greatness.

Are we having fun yet?

[Phil McDade]

Phil, I think you underestimate the power of greed.

...

George, I think you underestimate the power or hardscrabble beginnings. Lee and Gary were tough as nails because of their up bringing, something Tiger's dad worked on instilling in Tiger. When faced with that type of toughness, the modern raised in the country club set of golfers extraordinaire folds. Jack although raised in the country club set didn't fold, which is a testament to his greatness.

Are we having fun yet?

Hear hear! Trevino -- who really learned golf while playing in big dollar games on courses in Dallas -- once said that real pressure was playing for $5 a hole when you only had $2 in your pocket.

[A.G._Crockett]

The idea that competition in golf FORTY years ago was tougher than today is absurdity of the highest order.  I am 59, and grew up a Palmer fan and a Trevino fan of the first magnitude, but this argument is a nonstarter.

Peter Kostis wrote about this recently in one of the mags, and laughed at the idea that Nicklaus faced tougher competition.  There were a dozen guys who could win each week back then; of course they won more!  Today, there are quite literally a hundred players that could win in a given week, including majors, maybe more.  Don't take my word for it; look up his article.  He left little doubt, and he is 100% right.

To contend otherwise qualifies you for membership in the Flat Earth Society and the Man Will Never Fly League.  You can spin names from the two eras any way you want, but the simple fact is that the depth of competition in golf today is exponentially better than even 20 yrs. ago, much less 40.

[Kalen Braley]

The idea that competition in golf FORTY years ago was tougher than today is absurdity of the highest order.  I am 59, and grew up a Palmer fan and a Trevino fan of the first magnitude, but this argument is a nonstarter.

Peter Kostis wrote about this recently in one of the mags, and laughed at the idea that Nicklaus faced tougher competition.  There were a dozen guys who could win each week back then; of course they won more!  Today, there are quite literally a hundred players that could win in a given week, including majors, maybe more.  Don't take my word for it; look up his article.  He left little doubt, and he is 100% right.

To contend otherwise qualifies you for membership in the Flat Earth Society and the Man Will Never Fly League.  You can spin names from the two eras any way you want, but the simple fact is that the depth of competition in golf today is exponentially better than even 20 yrs. ago, much less 40.

+ 1  AG,

I'm thinking if a guy like Trevino can travel around, serve in the military, not play regular golf, and then go out on Tour right after that and start dominating...

....that's not exactly saying much about the level of competition.  No way in hell one could do that these days.

[A.G._Crockett]

4. During Tiger's period of ALWAYS contending in majors, many here (and other places) claimed that his records were diminished at least somewhat because there were so few other players who could step up and win majors.  Now that Tiger is (at least for now) not contending, EVERY major is being won by a different player, which just goes to show the depth of competition in today's game.  It makes it all the more obvious how truly dominant Woods was.

A.G.:

I just couldn't let this comment slip without questioning the logic.

The fact that every major is being won by a different player would indicate to me that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone ... but it does not indicate that the level of play is necessarily high.  Indeed, the fact that nobody can win more than one or two majors seems to indicate that there aren't very many real champions among them.  In Nicklaus' day, somebody like Trevino or Miller would have been licking their chops if Jack was out for an extended period.

Tom,
Agreed that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone.  But you are dead wrong about what that says about the level of play. 

The number of players battling to make it as professionals now is astronomical.  Nationwide, Hooters, and multitudes of mini-tours.  College golf is vastly bigger, and the high school golfers compete MUCH harder to make it to college, and college golfers battle for years on the minor tours trying to break through.  Junior golf is an industry all its own.  Players compete more, win more, have more at stake, get better instruction, are fitter, and on and on.

I'm 59 and have been a high school coach (mostly basketball, but also golf) for 38 yrs.; I like the good old days as much as anybody.  But golf is no different than basketball, football, baseball, or soccer.  The depth of talent and accomplishment is incredible today, and growing all the time.  There is just no comparison to 25 yrs. ago, and to argue otherwise means to me that you just aren't paying attention to what is going on at the developmental levels of the sport.

I'm a big believer in Occam's Razor, and the simplest explanation for no repeat major winners in the last 2+ yrs. is that there are just vastly more players that can play well enough in a given week to win.  That also points out Tiger's greatness very clearly, IMO, but that's another argument.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()